The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-02-02
SENATOR GEORGES REPLY
Letter Of the Mississippi Railroad
Commissioners
JUDGE Hill. SHARPLY CRITIcIsED-THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BILL - In
CREASED NECESSITY FOR STATE ST.
PERvISI0S.
SENATE CHAMBER, wAsHISsToS,
January sd, iSS7.

January sd, iss7. J |
70 the Hon. J. F. Sessions, VIM. Neville and J.
G Kyle, Railroad Commissioners, ETC.:
GESTLEaES-Yourl letter addressed to
my colleague, and Attorney General Miller,
and myself, was received few DAYS before
my departure from Mississippi to this
city. | had then no time to answer it,
being wholly engaged with the necessary
preparations for an absence of several
months. 1t was my intention TO answer it
as soon as | could get settled here for the
winter but soon alter my arrival a return
Of my old trouble-infiammation in my /
eyes-so interrupted my labors that | had |
no time for other work than the per
Torrance OF the routine duties of Sena- |
tor This Is my apology for my long |
silence. L cannot even now devote the |
requisite time to the important subject on |
which you ask for an expression OF my |
views; but longer delay would be miscon- |
strued into an Indifference to your request. |
THE ACTION OF JUDGE HILL
in the matter OF the Receiver OF the v &
NJ. X. K. Co., set out in your letter, is, so
lar as / can see, without lustihcation-a
perversion OF such powers as he possessed,
and usurpation of powers not possessed
by him or any other Judge. | do not
charge him with a wilful fault, as, doubt
less, in his exnberant and excessive zeal to
remedy what he regarded as an evil, he
unwittlngly transcribed his authority as
Judge, by the assumption of powers for
himself and his agents, belonging, by valid
Constitutional law, TO the officers of the
State OF Mississippi Nevertheless, in my
judgment, his action in exempting the
Receiver OF that road from an obligation
to yield obedience to the law of the State
from which it derived its existence, its
powers and franchises, by whatever motives
inspired, was
A GREAT WRONG TO THE PEOPLE
and an attack on the sovereignty of the
State, in a matter which the Supreme
Court of the United States, reversing the
decision OF Judge Hill, had decided to be
within the States exclusive Jurisdiction
On this point the question is not whether
the Railroad Commissioners had either
ignorantly or wilfully done wrong, but
whether the Judge had the power to set
aside their action and direct the Receiver
to frame a new tariff of rates. 1t is true,
in doing this, he directed the Receiver to
submit the tariff framed by him to the
Railroad Commissioners but he was care
full not to direct his Receiver, in the mean
time, to observe the tariff framed by the
Commissioners and careful, also, not to
direct this Receiver to observe the new
tariff he was required to frame, with the
changes and notifications which the Com
missioners revising it should suggest His
order on this subject was nothing more nor
less than what l stated it TO be to Judge
Hill himself
AN INGENIOUS DEVICE TO EvADE
the State law, whilst, seemingly, complying
with it. Judge Hill probably intended
this as kindness and benefit to the people
of the State, in remedying what he may
have regarded as the unwise and ill-advised
action of its Constitutional officers but |
respectfully suggest that the people of this
State are competent to select their own
officers and to furnish remedy for the
correction of their errors without the
guardianship of even so wise a man as
Judge HILL
There is
A SIGNIFICANT COINCIDENCE
in the action of Judge Hill and the Rail-
road authorities which, though of course
purely accidental, had the same baleful
effect as if this action had come from con-
cert and combination between all of them
for it will be remembered, that nearly
contemporaneously with the action of the
Receiver in disobeying the State law under
the sanction of the Judge, there WIS
raising of the rates for hauling cotton from
Meridian 10 New York and other Eastern
cities by all three of the railroad com
panies centering at Meridian. There can
be no reasonable doubt that this increase
in rates was not the result of business
views, but was done solely to compel the
Railroad Commissioners to raise the rates
they had fixed for local business on one or
more of the roads. At all events, it hap.
pened that as soon as the local rates were
raised by the Railroad Com missioners, the
interstate rates to the Eastern cities over
which the Commissioners had no control
and which had been raised, were reduced
to the old standard. This combination or
accidental concurrence of the railroad com
panies (if that be the fact) in raising inter-
state rates, could not have been successful
in raising local rates, if Judge Hill had
not not protected his Receiver in
DIsREGARDING THE STATE LAW
as to rates between Meridian and Vicks-
burg, that road being wholly within the
State OF Mississippi; for if Judge Hill had
allowed the State Commission to fix rates
from Meridian to Vicksburg, the rates
could have been so fixed that the trans
portation TO the East, on which the exces-
sive rates had been fixed by the three rail
road companies, would have been turned
over the V. & NJ. Road to Vicksburg
and thence, by the Mississippi River or
the Mississippi Valley Railroad to New
York and other Eastern cities. In this
way the people of Mississippi would have
been protected against the exactions of the
railroads in interstate commerce, over
which the Railroad Commissioners had no
direct jurisdiction.
This is my answer to so much of your
letter as refers to the action of Judge Hill
above commented on. | will add few
thoughts ON other matters connected with
the subject of your letter.
The passage by Congress of
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE BILL,
whilst beneficial to the people, in regulat-
ing Interstate transportation, will give no
relief as to transportation which begins
and ends in State. On the contrary. I'M
less State shall take measures to regulate
the transportation which is wholly within
its borders, the effect of the interstate
commerce law, will be to raise rates on
this purely domestic commerce. The
provision in the interstate commerce
bill which was most strenuously re-
sisted by the railroad companies, is that
which prohibits greater charge-not per
mile, but in the aggregation a short
haul than for long one, when the former
Is included in the latter ; or, to illustrate,
which prohibits the charges of a smaller
sum for transportation from Jackson, Tenn,
to New Orleans, or from Corinth to Mobile
or New Orleans, than is charged for the
same amount, of the same kind of
goods, from Holly Springs, Winona, or
J ackson to New Orleans, in the one case. |
or from Tupelo, Okolona, or Macon to |
Mobile or New Orleans in the other. This |
however, does not prevent |
railroad company from charging more
from Holly Springs to Grenada or Jackson. |
or from Corinth to Tupelo, Macon or Me-
ridian, than is charges from Holly Spring. |
to New Orleans, in the one case, or from |
Corinth to Mobile or New Orleans. in the |
other. The reason for this is that Congress |
has no power whatever to fix or regulate |
the rates from Holly Springs and Corinth |
to the points above named. the beginning /
and ending of the transportation being
wholly within the limits of one State
The railroad companies strenuously in
sisted that this provision in the bill, pre-
venting greater charge for a short than
for long haul, would be very injurious to
them, since IL would prevent them from
making, as they claimed, reasonable earn
Ings on their investments They insisted
that they should be allowed to charge what
hey pleased on short hauls between
points non-competitive, in order that they
might recoup from that business losses
sustained, or make up insufficient gains
made on the long hauls where there was
Being deprived of this right
~ the inter state commerce bill, SO far as
beginning in one State and
.nding in another is concerned, they
will, Of course, use the right to the extent